Ryder wrote: ↑3 years ago
There's a direction emerging! Good!
That's exactly what I wanted to happen, hearing others' opinions besides my own and seeing if, as you said, a direction emerged. It did. Wonderful.
Sojourner Dusk wrote: ↑3 years ago
There is a simple solution: do away with human Judges and replace them with the MCC Algorithm...
Yes, sometimes I've had that thought too. After all it's the most formal contest we have, so, in my opinion, we have to find the sweet spot between subjectivity prevailing and judges being no more than robots essentially. One very important thing: in the MCC, objectivity should definitely prevail, with some room for subjectivity. If you remove subjectivity completely, you might as well use robots. In that, I think
@Sojourner Dusk is right.
slimytrout wrote: ↑3 years ago
it seems to me that the categories that work best are those that are the least subjective (mostly "Polish" subcategories) *and* those that are the most subjective ("Appeal" subcategories and Flavor to some extent), while the ones where I most often think "Wow, I don't know what this judge was thinking," are in the categories that try to mix subjective and objective criteria, like "Development" subcategories and Uniqueness.
This is a very interesting view, and something I had personally never thought about before. Thank you very much for offering me a new point of view.
slimytrout wrote: ↑3 years ago
Given that observation, I think that the solution ... is not necessarily to push every category to be more objective, but rather to figure out how to better separate the judgements that are the most objective ... from those that are the most subjective ...
Again, a very interesting opinion, probably the most interesting I've seen so far.
slimytrout wrote: ↑3 years ago
I don't know how achievable that is, but it seems to me like the direction we should be pushing.
I
might agree. For the moment, let's keep the discussion going on.
void_nothing wrote: ↑3 years ago
I would like to privilege Balance over Viability. That makes sense.
I definitely see how it makes sense, but I'm honestly not sure I fully agree with this. The goal of the MCC is to prize cards that are printable as is. A card can be unprintable because of Balance and power level (see the example about
Oko, that should have definitely been balanced better), but it can also unprintable if it breaks the color pie or the rules, or if it's at the wrong rarity, all points that go under Viability. I agree that Balance is probably the most important point in the current rubric, but Viability is a very close second in my opinion.
void_nothing wrote: ↑3 years ago
Whether a card is playable but still fair should in fact be the single most important criterion.
For Balance, sure. For other areas, I'm not sure.
void_nothing wrote: ↑3 years ago
that would be a major change to the MCC scoring system
I agree. In fact, that's exactly why we're discussing it here before eventually implement any changes, like the guidelines require. And we also have the option "no changes", let's not forget it.
void_nothing wrote: ↑3 years ago
The subjectivity is a feature, not a bug.
Here's the main point where I and you don't agree. To me it's actually just an "unnecessary evil", but one that I recognize must be there to a certain degree.
void_nothing wrote: ↑3 years ago
Things like aesthetics, emotional connection, and a sense of pure fun are important to custom cards.
At the contrary, I fully agree with this. I've already commented on the last point and I can only thank you again for that.
Ryder wrote: ↑3 years ago
how would you separate objective from subjective?
As I've touched upon before, I think this might be the crux of the "problem", and I might have only a partial answer, but I'm more interested in hearing what the community says, have more opinions to take an eventual decision together, the more shared between us the better. Also, I keep putting the word "problem" into quotation marks because I'm also not sure there are actual problems with the current rubric, though I'd be open to changes and adjustments. In the end, isn't it why we're discussing this here?
slimytrout wrote: ↑3 years ago
And it can be difficult as a judge when you have three points...
Would having more points in Balance help?
slimytrout wrote: ↑3 years ago
The only change that I think is certainly for the best is in the Main Challenge, where literally no one judges whether it was "approached in a unique or interesting way."
In fact, this was the other user who made the current rubric with me. If it had only been me, that specific question would most likely not be there.
slimytrout wrote: ↑3 years ago
I don't think the answer is to create a laundry list of criteria that pushes everything towards objectivity ... (example about Viability follows)
Honestly, now I'm questioning whether using area-specific questions is the correct approach. I could see, and that's what I had proposed years ago, a rubric without questions and with specific points instead. I'm not sure which option is better, and yes, that would be a very big change, but yes, I could be open to it personally.
slimytrout wrote: ↑3 years ago
so that the people being graded know what's expected of them, which I don't think always shines through in the current rubric.
It doesn't shine because we (I and the other user) absolutely didn't use or think about using that approach while writing the rubric years ago. So it's correct that it doesn't shine. We essentially didn't think about that, or at least not in that way. But I see what you mean, and you're not wrong. It's probably something we should have thought about back then.